[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8078-H8084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am in the well tonight because I feel 
very strongly that myself, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and others that 
are going to be joining us here tonight, Democrats, spent a lot of time 
last year as well as this year as part of basically an effort to try to 
make the point, and I believe successfully made the point that the 
Republican leadership in this Congress was trying to destroy Medicare 
as we know it.
  Democrats basically started Medicare over 30 years ago, Democratic 
Presidents, Democratic Congresses, because they were concerned that so 
many senior citizens did not have health care, either were not able to 
afford health insurance or found themselves unable to obtain health 
insurance as they became senior citizens. Over the last 30 years, 
Medicare has been very successful as a program in guaranteeing that 
almost all, almost 100 percent of the senior citizens in this country 
get health care and get good health care.
  It is not only a question of the fact that they are covered by 
Medicare but they have a choice of physicians, they have a choice of 
hospitals and the level of coverage, what is included in their 
coverage, as well as the quality of care that they receive generally is 
pretty good. That is a dramatic change from the situation before 
Medicare existed.
  Well, as my colleagues know, we faced a new Congress back in January 
of 1995 under the Republican leadership. One of the first things, and I 
have to admit I was very surprised, one of the first things that 
happened was that a budget was presented which essentially cut Medicare 
as well as Medicaid drastically, primarily to pay for tax cuts for tax 
breaks, if you will, mostly for wealthy Americans.
  But the proposals that came from the Republican leadership did not 
just cut Medicare, did not just cut the amount of money that was going 
into Medicare, they also tried to change the system dramatically so 
that senior citizens would not have a choice of doctors. Many would be 
pushed into managed care. many would also find that they had to pay 
higher out-of-pocket costs because their part B premiums would go up or 
because they would have to pay more as a copayment to their physician.
  What we saw is, as I said, a dramatic change in the structure of 
Medicare as well as drastic cuts in the amount of money that would go 
into the program. We fought hard against these Republican proposals, 
and we were successful. The Medicare program is today still the way it 
was 2 years ago. The dramatic cuts have not been implemented, and I 
suppose not surprisingly, because the Republican leadership realized at 
some point over the last 18 months that this was not working and that 
we were getting the message across, if you will, to the American public 
that this is what the Republican leadership wanted to do.
  All of a sudden, we see where the Republicans do not want to talk 
about Medicare anymore. They sort of pretend like all these debates and 
all these votes, these many times when they tried to cut it and change 
it, never occurred. So I was not surprised that last week 3 House 
Republican leaders held a press conference, last Wednesday, to 
basically discuss the new ads that the AFL-CIO has been putting on the 
air in various parts of the country where they point out that Speaker 
Gingrich and other Republican leaders were pushing for these Medicare 
cuts and basically changing, I would say actually destroying Medicare 
as we know it.

                              {time}  1945

  The Republican leaders basically got up and said, oh, those things 
are not true, we never tried to do that. Well, let me tell Members that 
they did and regardless of their rhetoric, the old statement ``Actions 
speak louder than words,'' well, the fact is the actions do speak 
louder than words in this case.
  Whatever the Republicans say now, the bottom line is that after 
taking control of Congress, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans set 
themselves to the task of slashing Medicare by $270 billion. If this 
Congress had passed and the President had signed, which we did not, 
their Medicare bill, seniors would have been forced out of traditional 
Medicare by making it prohibitively expensive to stay in the program. 
They would have been forced. Basically, they would have lost the 
choice, I should say, of their doctors and hospitals because 
essentially they would have been forced into managed care where they 
did not have the choice of doctors and hospitals.
  I do not think anybody really should be surprised by this because we 
know well that it took something like 13 years for Democrats to 
overcome Republican opposition and enact the Medicare Program on July 
30, 1965. And in 1965, 93 percent of the House Republicans, including 
then Representative Bob Dole, now the Republican candidate for 
President, voted for a substitute that would have killed Medicare as we 
know it. Over 60 percent of Republican Senators voted for a similar 
substitute.
  So we know historically the Republicans were opposed to Medicare, 
they continued that effort when they took back the majority in this 
Congress, and regardless of what the Speaker or the now Presidential 
candidate Bob Dole says, the bottom line is that they have over the 
years consistently tried to either stop Medicare from becoming law or 
change it dramatically in a most negative way.
  I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro] who really has been outspoken on this issue from the very 
beginning and really led the whole battle to make sure that we retain 
Medicare as it is and not make the drastic changes that the Republican 
leadership proposed.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New 
Jersey for taking the special order tonight because in fact the whole 
issue of Medicare is critically important to this Nation. I think, and 
I know my colleague from New Jersey feels this way and our other 
colleagues who are here tonight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Klink] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], also feel the same 
way, that Medicare represents not a program but in fact what our values 
are in this country, in that it says to people who have worked hard all 
of their lives, who have played by the rules, who have raised their 
families, who have contributed to the successful economy of this 
Nation, that when you retire and when you are a senior citizen that you 
will have a safe and a dignified and a decent retirement and that you 
will be able to have health care.
  I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his efforts in talking about 
Medicare and also about health care for seniors in this country. He has 
led the fight on that issue and I thank him for laying out the fact 
that it used to be in 1946, or before Medicare that we did not have the 
opportunity for seniors to have health care. That meant that families 
had to take in their mothers or fathers or their loved ones and somehow 
work out health care and was not clear how that was going to get paid 
for. With the advent of Medicare and today in 1996, we are looking at 
99 percent of seniors who are covered.
  Let me just go back for a second because it was not 1946, but before 
Medicare only 46 percent of seniors had health care coverage. So 
Medicare has meant a difference in the lives of seniors today, and it 
is something they come to count on, and not as a handout but something 
that they have paid for and that is there for them now.
  But I think it is very interesting that in this Congress, as has been 
pointed out, that there is a war that is being waged on Medicare. The 
Republican leadership, with the House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the 
helm, is truly

[[Page H8079]]

bent on dismantling Medicare, and I think it is worth repeating the 
quote that the Speaker made some months ago that, and this is what he 
said: ``Now we don't want to get rid of it in round one because we 
don't think that that is the right way to go through a transition, but 
we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people 
are voluntarily going to leave it.''
  Now, after the wither on the vine quote appeared in various media 
accounts, Mr. Gingrich's spokesman, Tony Blankley, was questioned on 
the accuracy of the quote, which they are now trying to run away from. 
They cannot move away from the quote fast enough. But Newt Gingrich's 
spokesman, Tony Blankley, was questioned on the accuracy of the quote. 
On October 26, 1995, Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley confirmed 
Gingrich's statement to the Los Angeles Times. Blankley said that 
Gingrich's comments were ``consistent with the Republican belief that 
most seniors would voluntarily choose to leave the traditional Medicare 
fee-for-service system in favor of health maintenance organizations and 
other managed care networks. It will mean the end of the system as most 
seniors know it.''
  These are words that are not made up. This is a direct quote from 
Tony Blankley. And yet the Republican leadership, the Republican 
National Committee, are currently objecting to a hard-hitting ad 
campaign, and I concur it is a hard-hitting campaign, as it should be, 
which is running across the country that highlights their position on 
cutting Medicare, and they are running as fast as they can away from 
these quotes.
  I just point out what my colleague said about the then representative 
Dole. He prides himself on being 1 of 12 to have voted against Medicare 
and has said within recent months how proud he is of that vote. Well, I 
will tell you, people can run but they cannot hide. You cannot hide 
from the record and quite frankly, the record stinks. It really does.
  I will make one point on what has been said about now in his 
revisionist history on this quote about withering on the vine that in 
fact he did not mean Medicare, but something called the Health Care 
Financing Administration. But it is hard to understand how individuals, 
except perhaps the employees, could leave an agency. This is 
ridiculous, people do not do that. If the employees of the agency 
leave, what has been implied all along, that it was the Medicare system 
that people were going to leave, that is what this is about. These are 
individuals who have a record, truly a record of being opposed to 
Medicare, and now they ask for the country to put their faith and their 
trust in people who had been willing to dismantle this operation.
  I just make a final point, I know my other colleagues want to get 
into the discussion, the 1997 Republican budget reflects the fact that 
they do in fact want to see Medicare dismantled and turned into 
something else with a proposal of $168 billion in Medicare cuts over 
the next 6 years. We have been through this time and time again, and 
when we look at what they want to do with the $168 billion, this year 
it is $168 billion, last year it was $270 billion, they talk about 
having moderated. But if you take a look at this, the $270 billion cut 
would have been a 19 percent cut from Medicare; this time it is a 17 
percent cut. So it is really the same numbers, if you will, and it is 
no coincidence that what they want to try to do with this money is to 
pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Last year it was $245 
billion in tax cuts, this year it is $176 or $180 billion in tax breaks 
for the wealthy.
  As I said, they can run but they cannot hide from the comments that 
they have made in the past past and in the most recent past about how 
they want to see this system go away and take away from seniors in this 
country something that they have come to recognize as helpful to them 
in being able to truly survive in their older years and something that 
they deserve, a sacred trust if you will, that we committed to when 
this system was put in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to 
participate in this effort this evening.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and just, 
if I could, briefly comment on what the gentlewoman said when she 
raised again the quote from Speaker Gingrich about Medicare withering 
on the vine. It is amazing to me how he can now suggest that somehow 
that statement was only meant to be applicable to the fact that they 
were changing Medicare to force people into managed care, as opposed to 
the traditional fee-for-service system, because it seems to me that is 
exactly the context in which the program would wither on the vine.
  If you take away a lot of the money from Medicare and make the 
significant cuts that the Republicans have proposed, then the quality 
of care has to suffer because there is not going to be the money 
available to provide the level of services and the quality of services 
that Medicare now provides. If you force everyone into managed care, or 
you make managed care cheaper than the traditional fee-for-service 
system where you can choose your own doctor and then so many people do 
not have a choice of doctor anymore, then the reality is that Medicare 
has changed and does begin to wither on the vine. More and more people 
will find it necessary to supplement the program if they can afford it, 
which a lot of them cannot, in order to be able to have their own 
doctor.
  So it does wither on the vine. That is exactly what the quote was 
meant to say, and that is exactly what they were doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone]. A lot has been made about whether or not this ad has been 
taken out of context, and some letters from the Republicans to various 
television station managers have threatened them that there was going 
to be a libel suit, there was going to be legal action if they did not 
pull these ads that are being run by the AFL-CIO.
  Now why, you might ask, Mr. Speaker, is the AFL-CIO being involved? 
Well, they are involved because they represent the labor unions that 
represent the working people of this Nation, people who have played by 
the rules, working men and women who get up early every morning, they 
go to work, they perform a task, they pay into pension funds, they pay 
their taxes, and they are told Medicare will be there for you when you 
retire. Medicaid will be there if you need to go to a nursing home and 
you fall within the earning abilities to have Medicaid pay for that 
nursing home care. But now they are seeing that there is a majority 
party, the Republicans, who want to see this wither on the vine.
  So the AFL-CIO said, look, the corporate interests of this country 
and their PAC's have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in promoting 
the Republican line. Let labor weigh in with a $35 million buy-in and 
let us inform the voters what our position is on this. The Republicans 
have said, no, we do not want this. They are running away, as my 
colleagues have said, from the Newt Gingrich quote saying that no, he 
was talking about HCFA, the Federal Health Care Finance Administration 
that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Well, let me read the quote, 
Mr. Speaker, and let Members and let everyone else in the shot of my 
voice decide what is taken out of context.
  The Speaker said: ``Now let me talk a little bit about Medicare. Let 
me start at the vision level so you understand how radically different 
we are and why it's so hard for the press corps to cover us.''
  Speaker Gingrich continued as he was speaking to an audience from 
Blue Cross and Blue Shield. He said: ``Medicare is the 1964 Blue Cross 
plan codified into law by Lyndon Johnson and it is about what you'd--I 
mean, if you went out into the marketplace tomorrow morning and said 
`Hi, I've got a 1964 Blue Cross plan.' I'll let you decide how 
competitive you'd be. But I don't think very.''

  Speaker Gingrich continued to say: ``So what we're trying to do, 
first of all, is say, O.K., here is a Government monopoly plan. We're 
designing a free-market plan,'' he says and he is obviously referring 
to Medicare and Medicaid because that is all he has talked about so 
far, has not mentioned HCFA.''
  Then the Speaker continues: ``Now they're very different models. You

[[Page H8080]]

know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, `Get rid of centralized command 
bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace.' ''
  And then finally Speaker Gingrich does refer to the Health Care 
Financing Administration. He says: ``O.K., what do you think the Health 
Care Financing Administration is? It is a centralized command 
bureaucracy. It is everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid 
of. Now, we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think 
that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go 
through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine 
because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it--
voluntarily.''
  Now, voluntary leave HCFA or voluntarily leave Medicare?

                              {time}  2000

  You cannot leave HCFA unless you work for the agency. And on this 
assumption the Republican leadership is going out with their lawyers 
writing to television stations and saying pull those ads. How dare the 
AFL-CIO tell the people of this country what the Republican Congressmen 
have been voting to do?
  How dare they not? It is their duty. When people play by the rules, 
it is our duty to tell them that we have changed the rules or that we 
have one party or the other that wants to change the rules, and that 
party is the majority party.
  Now, we understand in this country, and we hear on the floor of the 
House a lot of talk about Christian morals. We hear a lot of talk about 
patriotism. I am reminded of a quote by John Foster Dulles, who once 
said, and I will paraphrase but I am very close, he said something 
about this country would be in very poor condition if we only saved for 
the battlefield the strongest human qualities.
  I think he was talking about the qualities of selflessness, of 
patriotism and caring and bravery, all of the things that we view as 
important on the battlefield to somebody who is a patriot.
  But what he said is we do not use those qualities only on the 
battlefield, we are to use them in our everyday life. How patriotic it 
would be, how Christian it would be to take care of our parents and our 
grandparents. How patriotic it would be and how Christian it would be 
to make sure that we did not punish children because their parents 
happened to be on welfare too long.
  So we talk on one side of the Republican side about being patriotic 
and about having Christian values, and on the other hand the 
legislation that we attempt to cram down the throats of this Chamber 
and the people of this country is a completely different kind of 
legislation.
  It is very clear to me that Speaker Gingrich was talking about 
leaving Medicare wither and die on the vine, not the Health Care 
Financing Administration. The handful of people who work over there 
might leave voluntarily, I do not know that they are going to quit 
their jobs.
  We are talking about a health care system designed in 1964 when 30 
percent of our senior citizens were living in poverty because they had 
no health care. The corporations of this Nation did not voluntarily 
take care of people in their old age. They did not provide health care 
for them. They did not provide pensions for them in many instances. So 
we developed in 1934 a Social Security system to take care of people in 
their old age and to give them some money coming in.
  In 1964, again in 1965, we created an insurance company and we called 
it Medicare. We also added Medicaid. And we said let us take care of 
the disabled and let us take care of the poor children and let us take 
care of these folks, also.
  Now, 30 years later, the Republicans get control of the House. Very 
proud is Bob Dole, as my colleagues have said tonight, that he was 1 of 
12 that did not vote for it. He was proud that he did not like Medicare 
back then. But why was Medicare created? Why was Social Security 
created? Why was the public school system created? It was created 
because the corporations and the robber barons were not educating the 
children of their workers.
  All of these programs, the reason that we have all of this Government 
is because the corporations did not do these things voluntarily. So we 
the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union 
and to have domestic tranquility and to provide for other generations, 
both those who have passed and those who are coming up, have created 
programs of social safety nets.

  I know that is an oft-used term we throw around, but it is true; it 
is what it is. We have these social safety nets, and they are there for 
a reason. Now the AFL-CIO, that represents roughly one in every five 
working people and is responsible for the fact that the workers of 
America today have many of the things they do have, is under attack.
  We have various subcommittee chairmen and committee chairmen from the 
Republican side putting out press releases and holding hearings that 
are intimating that, if you belong to a labor union, you are either, A, 
Communist or, B, you must belong to the mob. One or the other: You are 
either a Communist or you belong to the mob.
  This gives me a problem. Now all of a sudden, and I will tell you, 
Mr. Speaker, I come from having been in broadcasting for 24 years. I 
worked for more than one or two radio and television stations. Now they 
are threatening the radio and television stations of this Nation, 
saying, if you carry this ad by the AFL-CIO, that which, by the way, 
does not have an actor reading Speaker Gingrich's words, it takes 
Speaker Gingrich saying his own words about what he wants to see 
Medicare do, and that is to wither on the vine and to die. There is no 
question.
  This is not something that is up for debate. For the leadership of 
the Republican Party to hold a press conference last week to try to 
create some kind of smoke screen is nothing more than that, it is a 
smoke screen and a very poor one. And the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
will see through it.
  I yield back to my friend from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I want to 
say briefly I am so glad he pointed out how the Repulbican leadership 
is really trying to gag this whole issue and trying to go after the 
media and those stations that cover these ads. From the very beginning, 
and we have the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Stupak, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Klink, who are also members of 
the Committee on Commerce with myself, and we can remember when 
Medicare, when this Republican Medicare proposal came before our 
committee, there was only one hearing. The Republican leadership did 
not want their proposed cuts and the changes in Medicare that they were 
proposing to be aired with the public. When the senior citizens showed 
up at the hearing, they were actually arrested.
  Mr. KLINK. If the gentleman would yield on that point.
  Mr. PALLONE. Certainly.
  Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman for mentioning that, because 1 week 
earlier, in the same Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Commerce 
is a very important committee of the House of Representatives. We say 
it is the oldest committee in the Congress, and we are very proud to be 
there. We try to work on many issues and have worked on many issues in 
this committee: Telecommunications Act, securities reform. On many 
things we have worked in a bipartisan manner. The committee has 
traditionally worked in that respect.
  A week earlier, if memory serves me, we had a senior citizens group 
come in that were in favor, supposedly, of the Republican changes to 
gut Medicare. They had bags of mail. They interrupted the committee 
hearing and dumped the bags of mail in support of the Republican 
Medicare, I call it the Medicare rape and pillage, but that is probably 
my own words; and nothing was said. Nothing was done.
  However, when another group of senior citizens who were from the 
Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland area came in, the committee 
chairman ordered them to be arrested. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Stupak, myself, the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Rush, and the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, went with them. We said, if they were 
going to be arrested, we are going to go with them.
  I want the gentleman to understand some of these people were in 
walkers, some in wheelchairs. Some had canes.

[[Page H8081]]

And they were going to arrest them? They did not disrupt as much as the 
previous group that had dumped the mail. But, see, they were in favor 
of what the chairman and the Republican majority wanted to do, and so 
we did not worry about that.
  By the way, I might mention that a vast amount of the mail from the 
previous week that was dumped by the first group that was allowed to 
participate because they were in favor of what the Republicans were 
doing, we found out, was coming from people that either did not exist 
or were dead. So I guess dead people are in favor of what the 
Republicans want to do with Medicare because they do not need it 
anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
  Mr. PALLONE. And every one of you, I certainly know the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut and everyone else here, I believe, we were forced, 
because we could not get a hearing in order to tell the truth about 
what the Republicans were doing, we were forced to go out in the lawn 
in the rain, which was a memorable day to have a hearing, to tell the 
truth. So I see this almost as a first amendment issue.
  The Republicans do not want the truth to be told. So they are now 
threatening the media, the way they threatened and tried to gag the 
people that came and tried to testify at the hearing. They just do not 
want the truth to come out.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman for convening this special order 
and for yielding. The gentleman is undoubtedly aware, as all of us are, 
that we are 15 weeks away from the last day of campaigning in this 
election. Many of us are counting the days as they approach. I am sure 
many ordinary American citizens are counting for those days to end as 
well, but it is a significant election we now face in 1996.
  I think, despite the fact that I am a candidate in the election, as 
all of us are, I think it is significant far beyond our personal 
involvement. I really believe this may be the starkest contrast, the 
clearest choice that American voters have faced since Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover in 1932. I do not think there has 
been a time in our history beyond that year that we have had such a 
sharp contrast.
  It is curious that 4 years ago, when there was a choice at the 
Presidential level, the American people were told they could continue 
the policies of George Bush or take a chance with the policies of Bill 
Clinton. Certainly Mr. Perot was in the race, but those were the two 
major candidates. There was a bit of risk-taking involved because those 
voting for Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, really had to accept his 
platform and his promise. They did not know what he would actually do 
as President of the United States.
  It took a leap of faith for them to elect Bill Clinton as President 
of the United States and give him a chance to govern as the highest 
elected leader in this great Nation.
  But it is a much different choice we face in 15 weeks. There is no 
leap of faith involved. We know exactly what the choices will be. We 
know what Bill Clinton and Al Gore have fought for. We know what the 
Democratic Party stands for. And we know very clearly on the issue of 
Medicare what the Republican leadership stands for.
  If Bob Dole ends up being the nominee of his party, and there is some 
speculation he may not be, but I suspect he will be, if he ends up 
being the nominee of his party, can the voters trust Medicare with Bob 
Dole? Well, look back 31 years ago when Bob Dole sat on this very floor 
as a Member of the House of Representatives and in his judgment decided 
that the enactment of Medicare was a bad idea.
  Now, many of us cast votes years ago that we would like to have over 
again and perhaps change, but Bob Dole is consistent. He recently said, 
when asked, it was the right vote to vote against Medicare. He knew it 
was not going to work.
  So, here we have an unrepentant Bob Dole, voted against Medicare, who 
is seeking to become President of the United States and have the 
primary responsibility as President for the future of Medicare. Should 
this cause some concern and caution and pause among voters who worry 
about the future of Medicare? Well, I think so.
  Let us assume for a moment that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt 
Gingrich, continues to be the putative leader of the Republican Party 
and asks to be Speaker again, if he has that opportunity at the 1996 
election. Is there any question in anyone's mind on what he will do to 
Medicare? Well, we already know his game plan. He was totally 
unrepentant and said it was wither on the vine. He would cut $270 
billion out of Medicare in order to provide tax breaks for wealthy 
American people.
  So those who are looking for a protector of Medicare in Newt Gingrich 
and the House Republicans had better keep looking. Unfortunately, on 
the other side of the rotunda, in the Senate, the Republican leadership 
is in lockstep with Mr. Gingrich and his thinking.
  So in 15 weeks the voters will have their last night and their last 
day and hour of deliberation before making what I think will be the 
most important choice, political choice in this half century, in this 
1996 election. They will know what they can choose from: Bill Clinton, 
running for President, who vetoed the Gingrich-Dole cuts in Medicare, 
or the Gingrich-Dole team, which will come in and change Medicare and 
allow it to wither on the vine, as Mr. Gingrich has said.
  They will have a choice between Bill Clinton and his support for 
Medicaid, which is so important for poor children, disabled people, and 
elderly folks in nursing homes, or they can turn to the Dole and 
Gingrich team which wanted to make massive cuts in Medicaid, cuts that 
really would have endangered the future of a lot of young people and 
elderly alike.
  They can vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who have supported 
college student loans, who are talking now about creative ways to help 
working families pay for college education, talking about the 
opportunities of education and training, or the Dole-Gingrich team.
  And what did they propose? They continue to suggest cutting college 
student loans, making them more expensive for kids from middle-income 
families, make it more difficult for kids from families like my own to 
ever have a chance to go to college.
  And finally they can look at the environmental protection. They know 
what Bill Clinton's record has been. They know what the Democrats have 
stood for in Congress. And they know very clearly what we are going to 
have if it is a Dole-Gingrich leadership on Capitol Hill and in 
Washington, DC, the same Newt Gingrich who proposed eliminating 14 
environmental protection laws endangering the safety of the air we 
breathe and the water that we drink.

                              {time}  2015

  This is a stark contrast. Republicans are very proud of what they 
stand for. I admire their tenacity. They are going to stick with this 
no matter what. But I think the voters, and particularly moderate 
Republicans and independent voters, see through the Dole-Gingrich 
agenda.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing up the issue of 
Medicare tonight. I think he focuses us on what our decision as a 
Nation will be in 15 weeks. It will be the most important decision of 
my lifetime, and I sincerely hope that the people of this country will 
stick the Clinton-Gore leadership and the Democratic leadership on 
Capitol Hill, to bring about the right kind of change, to not go too 
far, as Mr. Dole and Mr. Gingrich have gone in their last year and a 
half together as a team here on Capitol Hill. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to just add onto something that my 
colleague from Illinois spoke about. That is, whom do you trust? Do you 
trust Bob Dole and his commentary about being proud to have voted 
against Medicare, and Newt Gringrich wanting it to wither on the vine?
  Most recently in the publication ``Roll Call'' Morton Kondracke, a 
journalist, wrote in his column: ``Asked whether Republicans will come 
back with a different agenda in 1997, the House majority whip, Tom 
DeLay, who was a Republican from Texas, told Morton Kondracke, this is 
a gentleman

[[Page H8082]]

who is third in charge of the House of Representatives,'' said, again, 
``We wouldn't change a thing, including the plan to reduce Medicare 
growth by $270 billion over 6 years.''
  So the entire leadership, the entire leadership is bound and 
determined to see Medicare turned into something other than what it is 
now and the kinds of protections that it provides to seniors, This is 
not a passing moment, a past moment. This is a current moment, when we 
have the Gingrich-Dole leadership of this Congress in lockstep opposed 
to the Medicare system. Then they ask the American public to trust them 
with this program. How can it be?
  I thank my colleague from Illinois for laying that out.
  Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentlewoman is right. Just from talking to 
my own constituents, particularly this weekend, I think people 
understand that that is why they wanted President Clinton where he is, 
because they are concerned about the hurt that this Congress is doing, 
if you will, to the average American, particularly on the Medicare 
issue.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding to me.
  I would like to take special note of the work he has done in this 
area, in bringing this health care and health issue to the attention of 
the American public, and also Ms. DeLauro, who has been here night 
after night helping raise the level of consciousness of what is really 
going on in this country and in this Congress.
  As I sat in my office tonight, I heard you speak of what the Speaker 
had said about trying to get Medicare, ``We will let it wither on the 
vine,'' and Mr. Dole bragging about how in 1965, he fought against 
Medicare. Then I was pleased to come down tonight to join you and Mr. 
Klink. We sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, which has jurisdiction over 
Medicare and Medicaid. Again, Mr. Durbin, who was here tonight, had 
many, many words to speak on this subject.

  We were just talking about trust here a few minutes ago. Who do they 
trust to look after the health care needs of this Nation? Is it going 
to be the President or citizen Bob Dole?
  As we take a look at it, I think more than just words we should look 
beyond the words. Let us look at some of the proposals that have been 
brought forth before the Committee on Commerce, the Subcommittee on 
Health and Environment which both of us sit on now.
  Who do the children and the seniors of this country trust to provide 
for their needs? If we take a look at Medicaid, and we talked about 
Medicare, I guess is the most popular, but Medicaid and the drastic 
reductions proposed in Medicaid, Medicaid takes care of children, but 
also two-thirds of our seniors rely on Medicaid for nursing home care.
  But the so-called Medicaid reform proposal that was put forth in 
early June here before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Democrats insisted on a couple 
things. First of all, we insisted to ensure that there is a safety net 
for elderly, the disabled and for impoverished children. The Democrats 
also insisted that Medicaid be a joint Federal-State partnership which 
would work together to provide critical health care needs for those who 
really truly need it in this country.
  What did the Republican bill do? It removed the guarantee of health 
care for the elderly and disabled and replaced it with the hope of 
Governors across this country. I have no problem with Governors. I 
think they do a good job. But what my Republican friends forgot and 
they did not add was, we give it to the Governors, the reason why we 
have a Medicaid Program in the first place is because the States could 
not and did not provide for those people who needed care.
  So the GOP bill, while it allows the States to define the scope, the 
amount and duration of any Medicaid benefit, and in that bill it states 
the Governors need to provide a nursing home benefit, it would allow 
the States to limit that nursing home benefit to just 5 days. People do 
not go to the nursing home because they only need care for 5 days.
  So they would have 5 days a year, that is what the bill said, 5 days 
every calendar year. The average care for a person in a nursing home is 
$38,000. So we are going to help with 5 days' worth and after that they 
are on their own.
  Where does that money go? For all the populations that this bill, the 
Republican bill, purported to protect, the elderly, disabled, children 
and low-income families, it did not even guarantee that they would 
receive quality care, let alone adequate care, when the nursing home 
benefit is defined as 5 days.
  I received a letter from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association 
on this block grant, Medicaid block grant proposal. Here is what they 
said, and I quote:

       We fear that under the Republican Medicaid block grant 
     program, health care services for our most vulnerable 
     population, the elderly living in nursing homes, the poor and 
     children, may be jeopardized as hospitals who continue to 
     bear a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for 
     these individuals face reduced payments.

  In other words, they are going to cut, for those who provide the 
care, even further.
  Here is what else the Republican bill did. Currently, under current 
law, we have a prohibition against spousal and family impoverishment. 
That is current law. You cannot put a family into poverty while they 
are trying to provide for their parent in a nursing home. Unlike 
current law, the proposal does not prohibit States from charging high 
copayments for Medicaid or contributions associated with long-term 
care.
  Another troubling aspect of the proposal, and I asked the drafters of 
the bill when it came before the committee, I said this legislation 
does not require the benefits provided by the program to be provided 
equally across a State. I am from Michigan. I represent northern 
Michigan, a very rural area.
  So, for instance, if Michigan chose to provide for long-term care in 
Grand Rapids, would they deny that same long-term care benefit to the 
folks in the upper peninsula of Michigan? The drafters of the bill said 
they could do that. So even in the State they are not even going to get 
equal treatment if it is left to this Republican bill on Medicaid.
  Medicaid recipients and their families cannot afford substantial cuts 
in State spending and the Federal Government, and we cannot afford to 
shift it all from the Federal Government to the State because neither 
one can do it standing alone.
  But I want to balance the budget. I know Mr. Pallone wants to, and 
Mr. Doggett and Mr. Durbin, but there is a right way and there is a 
wrong way to do it. So to try to fix things, Democrats offered a number 
of amendments on Medicaid. Let me just hit 12 of them, if I can, 
briefly.
  Let us have an amendment in there would effectively prohibit fraud 
and abuse in Medicaid. That was rejected. That was Mr. Dingell who 
brought up that amendment.
  So we said, Ms. Eshoo from California brought up an amendment that 
said, let us have a guarantee of coverage for children, make sure the 
kids are taken care of under Medicaid. Rejected.
  Well, then let us take care of the elderly who need nursing home 
care. That is what Medicare, that is what we spend two-thirds of the 
money for. Let us do that. That was your amendment and Mr. Markey from 
Massachusetts. That amendment was rejected.
  We said, surely there has to be some compassion here. So let us 
provide coverage for the elderly who have Alzheimer's disease. That was 
Mr. Deutsch of Florida. He offered that amendment. Rejected.
  So we said, surely we are going to take care of our veterans who need 
nursing home care. Remember that one? Mr. Gordon of Tennessee brought 
up that amendment. They will not even take care of veterans. That was 
rejected under the Medicaid bill.
  So we said, all right, can we at least take care of the seniors who 
are in a nursing home now receiving Medicaid benefits. can we take care 
of that one? Mr. Klink brought up that amendment. That was rejected.
  Well, how about one of the Republicans, Mr. Ganske. He is a doctor on 
the committee. He brought up, let us just guarantee current law to take 
care of the kids. That was rejected.
  Well, Mr. Richardson, he brought up the amendment that said, let us 
guarantee coverage for native Americans,

[[Page H8083]]

Indians. I have seven tribes in my district, great amendment. That was 
rejected by the majority party.
  How about just allowing, this was Mr. Engel of New York and Mr. 
Sherrod Brown of Ohio, how about just allowing the right of the elderly 
to choose their own nursing home. If you are going to go on Medicaid, 
you go to a nursing home, seniors, you get to choose which one you want 
to go to. Rejected.
  How about Ms. Furse of Oregon, who said, how about if we take care of 
pregnant women and infants, kids under 2. that was rejected 14 to 25.

  We said, all right, how about current law, we provide for women with 
cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer. Can we keep that coverage 
going under Medicaid. No, that was rejected, 17 to 23. We lost that 
one.
  I said, hey, I am concerned about rural areas. We are treated 
different than urban areas. Pay us the same, whether you live in 
Escanaba, MI in the Upper Peninsula or in Grand Rapids, if you are in a 
nursing home you should get paid the same. That was rejected. That way 
my amendment.
  How about just restoring the minimum payment standards for hospital 
and nursing homes and managed care plans, restore the current minimum 
funding for them. That your amendment, Mr. Pallone. That was rejected 
16 to 24.
  So the point is, it is more than just words. We offered commonsense 
amendment for breast cancer, veterans, to let seniors choose their 
nursing homes, take care of children, infants, help them out, come 
together in a partnership, that is what this trust issue is all about. 
Every one of our proposals were rejected.
  So more than just the words of citizen Bob Dole or more than just the 
words of Speaker Newt Gingrich, look at what their legislation really 
does. As we move into this election year, I do hope we have debates. 
And I hope they are not about just the words of what someone said but, 
rather, the legislation they are proposing, because I think when you 
look at the legislation that is proposed and what we as Democrats have 
tried to stand up for, that safety net for seniors, for veterans, for 
children, and see it being cut away, torn away by votes of 16 to 24, 
where we lose commonsense amendments, then I think the trust will be 
with the Democratic Party. The trust will be with more than just words 
but, rather, with what the legislation proposes.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on 
this issue. It is always a pleasure to work with you on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, especially the Health and Environment Subcommittee, 
as we continue to bring common sense to this area.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I am really pleased that the gentleman pointed out the relationship 
between Medicaid and Medicare, because I think many people think that 
Medicaid is a program that is primarily for the poor. Of course, it is. 
But the bottom line is that two-thirds of the money under Medicaid pays 
for nursing home care. It is very easy for someone who is middle class 
or someone who is fairly wealthy after a few months or a few years, in 
some cases, in a nursing home to find themselves on Medicaid. That is 
why so much of the Medicaid dollars in fact go for senior citizens.

  It is interesting, I want to yield, but I just wanted to say that we 
started out the year, I think, certainly last year where the Republican 
leadership was trying to cut and change dramatically Medicare. I think 
as they realized politically that that was not working too well with 
the American people, they started to talk about it less and less. Now 
they do not want us to remind them about it.
  Then they started going to Medicaid, because they figured, well, 
maybe we can cut that and we can change that and people will not worry 
about it so much because it only affects poor people. Then they 
realized that these senior citizens, in particular, who are impacted by 
changes in Medicaid, who objected to it, we brought it out. So now we 
do not hear much talk about changes in Medicaid anymore either.
  I think we can be sure that if the Republican leadership were to 
continue into the next Congress and if we did not have President 
Clinton out there threatening to veto these changes in Medicare and 
Medicaid, we would see both the drastic changes in Medicare and 
Medicaid come up once again.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. STUPAK. I mean look, if the partnership that I spoke of is no 
longer there, that we are in Medicaid which pays for nursing home care, 
and it is $38,000 a year, and you are only there for 5 days and they 
pull the rug out from underneath you, who pays for it? If the senior 
citizen cannot, it goes to the family. It is an indirect tax on the 
families of this country. You are not going to throw your parents out 
on the street for 360 days and get 5 days next year and then throw them 
out again. You are going to pick up that cost, that $30,000 a year. Who 
is going to be able to afford that?
  Mr. PALLONE. Exactly; thank you.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman, and, you know, as I have listened 
to your comments this evening and those of our other colleagues, I 
think there are several conclusions that can be drawn about this 
Medicare debate, and as important as Medicaid and Medicare are 
themselves, some of the most important programs ever set up in this 
Congress, I think the first conclusion is even more important than 
Medicare, and that is the conclusion that, as you listen to this 
debate, and you listen to the way the Republican leadership has run 
away from Medicare, it is because the American people are paying 
attention, and most of the people who are informed, who have followed 
this debate, understand what the Republican majority, the first time 
they got a majority in this Congress, the first thing they went after 
was Medicare and Medicaid. They set out to undermine and dismantle 
those systems, and the American people understand that.
  All of the excuses and the subterfuges that have been brought up 
here, when you get right down to it, the American people all over this 
country who have followed this debate, they understand it, and they 
know that Speaker Gingrich set out to cut Medicare and that he is still 
committed to that program.
  And I think the second conclusion that is very apparent from this 
debate is there is no doubt what Speaker Gingrich was talking about, 
and I know in the course of this special order you had the speech, 
almost his entire speech, given again for him by our colleague from 
Pennsylvania, but I want to emphasize that it is not only the words of 
that speech, but as some of our other colleagues pointed out, and I am 
quoting from a story in the New York Times 2 days after he gave the 
speech, he was at a town meeting down in his district near Atlanta, and 
the Atlanta Journal and Constitution reported that, quote, Gingrich 
said he was referring to the fee-for-service portion of Medicare which 
he believed that seniors would leave. That is what he said about 
``wither on the vine.'' And 2 days after that, the Los Angeles Times 
referred to his press secretary, Mr. Blankley, who said here in 
Washington that what he was referring to in saying he wanted it to 
wither on the vine, that Mr. Blankley said Mr. Gingrich's comments were 
consistent with the Republican belief that seniors would voluntarily 
leave the traditional Medicare system.
  Now, that is one of the few times Mr. Blankley has said anything that 
I, frankly, have agreed with. I agree with him completely that the 
Speaker's comment that he wanted Medicare to wither on the vine was 
consistent with the overall strategy. Indeed this was occurring at the 
same time that our Republican colleagues, as you may already have 
pointed out on Medicaid, came before the same committee that our 
colleagues from Michigan was talking about, and they said, ``Let's just 
totally eliminate, terminate forever, any Federal health and safety 
standards for those who are in nursing homes.''

  Now, I think that is the kind of extremism that the American people 
reject. They realize that too often our nursing homes, though there are 
many fine ones, some of them have kind of gone along from crisis to 
crisis, and to say we will just totally abolish any kind of health and 
safety standard for those who are not able to protect themselves in 
nursing homes was part

[[Page H8084]]

of the same strategies that was going on at the same time. It was 
consistent with that.
  But I would draw a third conclusion from your comments, and that 
would be a contrast between the Dole-Gingrich ticket with reference to 
Medicare because, you know, as coincidence would have it, or maybe it 
was not a coincidence, the same day that Speaker Gingrich gave his 
speech, October 24, 1995, last fall when they were going gung ho, shut 
the Government down, we do not care how many billions of dollars it 
costs the taxpayers, close it down, which is what they did, and it came 
up to about a billion and a half dollars that were squandered of 
taxpayer money, but the very same day that Speaker Gingrich made his 
comments Senator Dole was speaking the same day to a different group, 
and he said, and I quote, I was there fighting the fight, 1 of 12 
voting against Medicare in 1965 because we knew it would not work.
  It may not be expected in this election year for a Democrat to 
compliment a Republican, but I would tell my colleague from New Jersey 
that I do compliment Senator Dole, not on the substance of what he said 
about Medicare; indeed I could not disagree with him more on that, but 
at least, unlike the Speaker and the House Republicans, Senator Dole 
has not tried to run away from his comments. You do not see him going 
around and saying, ``Well, when I was talking about voting against 
Medicare, I was only talking about the Health Care Financing 
Administration.'' He has stood by his statement. Indeed, he has taken 
pride in the fact that he has a record here. Just as Speaker Gingrich 
and these Republican followers of him who wanted to let Medicare wither 
on the vine, Senator Dole has at least been willing to stand by his 
belief that Medicare was a mistake.
  And I think that is where this debate should be. It should be about 
whether in the future of this country, and there is, no doubt, some 
need for some restructuring and some improvement and some strengthening 
of the Medicare and Medicaid system, but whether we will trust those 
who believe in the value of insuring all of our seniors and protecting 
them after all they have done for this country or whether we will turn 
it over to someone who said I was proud 30 years ago that I voted 
against Medicare at a time when well over half of the seniors had no 
health insurance program at all, whether you are going to turn it over 
to someone like that as well as someone who says, well, let us just let 
Medicare wither on the vine, instead of standing by their statements, 
as has so often happened here in the House on a variety of subjects.
  Our Republican colleagues here in the House have, when caught and 
when the American people have realized what has occurred here, they 
have reacted by having their lawyers attempt to intimidate those who 
would spread the word. They would like to distract the American people 
and wait until after November to continue with letting Medicare wither 
on the vine and to intimidate anyone who would remind the American 
people, as our colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, who would dare 
to put on television the Speaker saying this in his own words, who 
would dare to repeat those words to Americans who might not have heard 
the speech, to Americans who may, in their struggle to make ends meet, 
have forgotten what an outrageous comment and what an outrageous plan 
this was.

  And I know that the gentleman from New Jersey will remember that when 
we were trying to get the details to find out how much they were going 
to hike the premiums, how much they were going to hike the deductibles, 
how much they wre going to hike the copayments, all things that were in 
the secret plan originally, that the first plan that was laid out in 
public was not a plan about how Medicare could be restructured. It was 
a public relations plan. It was the one the gentleman will recall that 
talked about kind of the herd mentality among our seniors and that they 
could be led around by their nose basically and that they would not 
realize what was being done to them in this instance.
  History in the recent months has certainly demonstrated that that 
public relations adviser, I think he is the same fellow involved in 
this so-called Contract on America, was all off because the American 
people are more intelligent than that. They realized what was happening 
here, and as I have discussed with some of our folks down there in 
Texas, you know if you have got a gardener that says, ``Let it wither, 
let your plants wither on the vine,'' most people have the good sense 
to realize that what you need is a new gardener because that is not the 
kind of gardener you want tending to your plants, and it is certainly 
not the kind of gardener that you want tending to something that is 
important and is vital to people as Medicare.
  And to all of those who say that this campaign with reference to 
Medicare and making American people aware of it is too hard hitting, I 
would just submit that they need to consider how hard hitting this plan 
was on seniors, on individuals with disabilities. If this plan, as 
originally envisioned, has gone into effect, the consequences would 
have been dramatic, and if this election passes and there are not more 
people here willing to stand up and fight against these Medicare cuts, 
there is no doubt they will be back with the same secret plans that 
they had in the past.
  Mr. PALLONE. I would just add to the gentleman: You know, I think 
that that is what elections should be all about: issues. That is what 
we are talking about here. I would like to see less emphasis on 
personality, which is what so many campaigns are about, and just talk 
about issues. That is what we are talking about here, Medicare. It is 
an issue, and to the extent that there are ads running that point out 
where one side stands or the other on an issue as important as Medicare 
to the American people, that is what this should be all about, a public 
debate on the issues, and that is what the Democrats have been doing 
essentially for the last 18 months, trying to point out what the 
Republican leadership has been proposing on Medicare.
  And I really think, as you said, Mr. Doggett, that most of my 
constituents are aware of it. Over the weekend I had a lot of people, I 
can just think of one woman in particular who came up to me when I was 
at church on Sunday and said. ``You know, I don't want to lose my 
doctor.'' She was not even concerned about the level of funding. She 
just did not like the idea that she was going to be pushed into managed 
care, which is essentially what this Republican plan would propose to 
do.
  So, I want to thank the gentleman for joining us tonight. We had a 
lot of participants here tonight, but we are not going to let this die, 
because I think we all realize that if this Republican leadership were 
allowed to have its way, we would see drastic changes in Medicare and 
cuts that ultimately would have it wither on the vine and cases to 
exist as a program that benefits seniors and provides for quality care 
and the level of services that they now have. So I want to thank the 
gentleman.

                          ____________________